Remedial Economics RE: Price Caps

At Reason, Veronique de Rugy warns us that we should be terrified of price caps.

Regulars here will already know that this is an immoral and impractical idea that would distort markets and lead to shortages if put into practice.

Same regulars might not know how popular this stupid idea is, though:

A new Wall Street Journal poll finds remarkable bipartisan support for government limits on prices, with 93 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of Republicans supporting capping prescription drug prices. Nearly four in five voters support capping credit card interest rates at 10 percent. And large majorities favor capping child care charges for working families. [bold added]

This news should be a clarion call for anyone with half a clue about economics.

Fortunately, de Rugy follows this up with a few brief paragraphs that might help any reasonably intelligent, thoughtful adult who isn't up to speed on economics realize why this idea is even worse than it is popular:

Consider credit cards. A 10 percent interest rate cap sounds lovely. Many Americans pay twice that. Why not simply tell banks that's the limit? Because an interest rate isn't an arbitrary number. It is the price of credit that reflects funding costs, administrative expenses, and, not least, expected default risks.

Congress can cap the rate, but it can't cap the risk. When the price a lender can charge falls below what the risk costs, lending stops. Lenders turn down applicants, cut credit limits, and close accounts. The borrowers the cap was supposed to protect still need the money. They end up at the payday lender or the pawn shop instead. In other words, interest rate caps hurt the economically vulnerable people they are supposed to help. [bold added]

De Rugy does the same quick analyses with two other areas that have politicians talking about price controls. Perhaps these walkthroughs will help people understand that price controls lead to shortages.

The piece is far from perfect, most glaringly in that it takes for granted the flawed idea that self-interest is predatory. This limits the usefulness of the piece to serving only as an economic lesson, although it is clear enough that the various price-capping measures out there will, in fact, harm the people they're supposed to be helping.

Price caps are not just stupid, they violate individual rights and, as such, they are also a moral outrage. But getting the word out about the former can be a decent place to start.

-- CAV

Vance Backwards on 'Socialism,' Foreign Labor

Writing at Reason, Billy Binion demolishes the Vice President's recent assertion that socialism "actually means ... that you want to replace American workers with foreign workers, and you want boys to play in girls sports"

You can go to the article itself for his quick demolition of the low-hanging fruit at the end of that ridiculous pronouncement.

The rest explains why Binion rather charitably labels J.D. Vance an "accidental socialist:"

[T]he Trump administration has complained about socialism while subtly embracing it. The government has, for example, taken stakes in dozens of private companies. "Federal ownership of private companies has become routine, and it is happening on the right even as members busily point fingers at the left for its socialism," wrote Reason contributing editor Veronique de Rugy in August. "The DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] at least tells Americans clearly what it wants. The danger on the right is quieter: a government acquiring the means of production one letter of intent at a time, and a political party acting as though socialism is something only the other side can do."

That's not to imply the White House is moving to abolish private property. Yet never before has a Republican administration exerted such control over the private sector while making "socialism" its primary bogeyman. Is irony dead?

Immigration is a particularly useful subject through which to examine this phenomenon. Which is closer to the concept of "socialism": when the free market decides whom companies can employ? Or when the government does? [bold added]

I am glad such a prominent commentator has finally made this identification.

In the same vein as I have said numerous times, "It is no business of President Trump where I buy my car from any more than it was Biden's what fuel it uses." It also isn't the President's business where my employees live. The Republicans' new anti-immigration/anti-free trade agenda is indeed much closer to socialism than it is to economic freedom.

-- CAV

Friday Funnies

A Friday Hodgepodge

I'm in the mood for some laughs this morning, how about you?

1. It can do many things, but can AI create inspirational posters? My favorite -- at least that holds up best without its background image -- from this collection is:

Glorious is the father who owns his quotes, for he also rejoices over his hut.

You be the judge. (HT: Paul Hsieh)

2. One of the more benevolent communities on the internet is the Bald reddit, which helps folks to "lose your hair, not your head."

People go there to get advice from "the council" on whether it's time to just shave the rest of it off, and may be jokingly told things like You're already bald! or (when they still look good with hair) Hold!

Recently, a guy who was sure it was time asked for confirmation, and his top-of-head shot inspired a Game of Thrones-themed map in reply.

For the record, I'm a hold, but barely, thanks to minoxidil. My wife and I joke about her letting me go bald, if I'll let her her go grey.

3. David Bushell doesn't just complain about bad software, he does something about it, as you will see in "Fine! I'll Build My Own Text Editor!":

Image via Know Your Meme.

"They don't make 'em like Sublime Text anymore" resonated with a lot of folk. Software these days is garbage. That got me thinking; I'm good at building garbage!

Why can't I build my own text editor?

VS Code is built upon Monaco Editor which is a <div> soup hellscape. I was late to the VS Code train because for years my Intel inside™ Mac was too slow. That issue was resolved when I bought Apple silicon. If that's the standard I have a lot of room to make mistakes.

I thank Bushell for the laughs, and for introducing me to an old meme, illustrated above at right, that escaped my attention back in the day.

The advantage of finding memes five-plus years older than your children is that there's a decent chance they don't know about them and you can get a laugh, as I learned the last time we did a family painting class outing.

4. Rob Walling's "How to Detect a Toxic Customer" is a humorous guide to early detection, and includes such signs as:

Warning Sign #3: Multiple Contacts, Often Through Multiple Channels

One of my favorites is to receive 3 emails (one each to our sales, support and info addresses), and a voice mail from the same person within a few minutes.

The request is not time-sensitive, the person just want to make sure someone receives it. And we do receive it ... four times.

I've never really understood this one; either they are really anxious to have their question answered, or they don't believe they are going to hear back. Either way, if you have to send four requests in order to hear back do you really want to buy software from that company?

Interestingly, the post itself shows the author practicing what he preaches, and still making a sale even after refusing to do business with a clueless, entitled person who tried to buy from him.

-- CAV

Live Through the Pain

Editor's Note: There is a small but nonzero possibility that weather associated with the hurricane brewing in the Gulf of Mexico will cause me to miss a post tomorrow or be offline for a day or so.

***

Someone responded to a Dear Prudence column with advice for dealing with chronic pain that struck me as worth keeping in the bank for any kind of similar problem that can't be solved:

Over time, I have come to see my migraines differently. My graduate school mentor, who studied healthy aging, would regularly say something along the lines of "Growing old is a privilege too few people get" when people, usually younger students but also the elderly study participants, would get a bit gloomy about the challenges older folks often face... I have done quite a bit of reading about the kind of head injury I experienced, and what I've learned is this: The vast majority of kids who get hurt as I did die immediately or shortly after. As one of the few who lived, I am one of the lucky ones. My migraines aren't going anywhere, but I have the privilege of being alive. I have an incredible wife, and a smart, funny, sweet, cool-as-could-be young daughter. My job, where I have too few days off to take leave when I get migraines, involves attempting to prevent people from developing chronic or deadly health issues. The price I must pay to have these incredible people and this meaningful life is frequent migraines. I accept that price.

That kind of perspective may not relieve that man's pain, but it puts him in a place of agency, which he otherwise would not occupy. He won that perspective by considering how things might have been different, and focusing on the values in his life.

This account reminds me of the sports saying, Play through the pain, except that it is constructive, rather than a foolish invitation to injury. Perhaps Live through the pain can leverage the familiarity to help one remember this positive alternative, if it is ever needed.

-- CAV

P.S. I would sound a note of caution about Prudence's mention of psychedelics. While they have helped some, they can themselves cause permanent, negative side effects.

An Upcoming Challenge for Secularists on Ethics

[T]hey've never faced the fact that while they've rejected so many other doctrines of their childhood preachers, altruism is the one they've never been willing to let go. -- Ben Bayer

***

While I cannot, off the top of my head, recall exactly where I first learned the above insight, I do recall seeing words to that effect by Ben Bayer and admiring what a great connection he had made.

Bayer elaborates on that connection at length in the upcoming Breaking Free from Faith-Based Morality, which will be published by Ayn Rand University Press in December.

In addition to its preface appearing at New Ideal, the book is available for preorder through Amazon.

Below is the conclusion of a look at America's "culture-wide religious fervor," which emphatically includes the secular part of the left:

I love the cover! (Image from Ayn Rand University Press, via New Ideal.)

Each of the other [left-wing] activist movements demands similar Abrahamic submission. Whether we are to sacrifice economic prosperity to Gaia's pristine wilderness or economic freedom and property rights to the classless society of the future, the activists demand we surrender ourselves and our values on the altar of the allegedly "higher" end of serving some Other. This moral outlook enjoins the virtue of humble self-sacrifice, and condemns heretics who commit the sin of prideful self-esteem. Even though many of the modern activists think of themselves as secular, they draw these core doctrines from none other than Judeo-Christian religion -- whether they know it or not.

More rational thinkers in the secular camp may agree there is something wrong with the religious fervor that motivates these activists, but concede that there is something noble about their (professed) ends. They may say that the Bible verses quoted by Talarico and Warnock are from a primitive mindset, but they motivate people to uplift the poor (etc.). But how do these thinkers know that their conception of the noble end is noble and not itself a product of that same primitive, religious mindset?

I think secular altruism -- the doctrine that morality consists in selfless service to others -- is in fact such a product, a holdover from Christianity's two-millennia monopoly over our thinking about right and wrong, good and evil. [bold added]

This will come as no surprise to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with Ayn Rand's critiques of altruism. What this book will do, I hope, is both to make it easier for Objectivists to apply that critique to today's cultural particulars and help some of today's secular leftists reach a point of being intellectually ready to consider that critique and thus learn of a much more practical and intellectually fertile way to think about morality.

I'm glad to hear about this book and look forward to reading it over the holidays.

-- CAV

Chris Wright Challenges 'Climate' Orthodoxy

One of the few good things about the current Administration is its pushback against bad energy policy. A recent piece by David Simon at the Washington Examiner focuses on a report by the Department of Energy that challenges "climate change" orthodoxy.

Its foreword is by Chris Wright, the Secretary of Energy, and states in part:

Climate change ... is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. As someone who values data, I know that improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge -- not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.

A regular here is likely to recall that Alex Epstein, author of Fossil Future, helped popularize the term energy poverty. And such a reader may also wonder why the name Chris Wright rings a bell.

I did, and remembered listening to Epstein interviewing him several years ago. The notes for that episode of Power Hour, as the podcast was then called, state in part:

In the past month Chris has done two very cool things.

One is that he has responded to the ESG movement with a report entitled "Bettering Human Lives" that highlights the amazing benefits of the oil and gas industry, and encourages rational thinking about climate.

Chris has also been making a lot of noise with a new "Thank You, North Face" billboard and video campaign.

In our discussion Chris and I cover:

• Why he chose to be an entrepreneur
• The response to his revolutionary ESG report
• The response to his "Thank You, North Face" campaign
• His role working with Mitchell Energy to bring about the shale revolution
• What Chris's activist successes can teach other energy CEOs
• Chris's plans for future activism
• Our common motivations for focusing our careers on energy
• How we think about criticism

The full interview is embedded below.

Chris Wright, proud Oil & Gas CEO

The Examiner piece is worth reading for an update on Wright's work, although the title is bombastic: While it is encouraging to see a government report like this one make rational arguments about a subject long dominated by hysteria, one must keep a broader perspective.

As good as it is to see this, at least compared to what a Democrat administration might produce, it fails to challenge the premises that the government should be weighing in on scientific arguments or that it has any business controlling the economy. This Administration's hostility to freedom of speech and its improper, constant, and corrupt meddling with the economy both severely undercut whatever good this report will accomplish. Furthermore, since there is no plan to dismantle the welfare/regulatory state, everything remains in place for the next leftist administration to reverse any reforms and reinstitute the previous messaging.

As welcome as this report is, it categorically does not "eviscerat[e] climate change hysteria." It offers counter-arguments, which many on the left will dismiss out of hand, if they hear them at all.

Fighting climate catastrophism isn't the government's job and doing do, as an intellectual campaign, is beyond the government's power, anyway. It is wrong to act like the battle is over just because "our guy" is in charge and got a government organ to produce a good report.

This is a battle won, but it is far from the end of the war.

-- CAV

Will: Spare Two GOP Senators

I generally agree with George Will's call for "carnage" for the GOP during the midterm elections, including his exceptions:

If Mike Rogers, former seven-term congressman and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is not Michigan's next senator, Abdul El-Sayed will be. The Democrat is comfortable in the company of antisemites and Holocaust deniers.

If Sen. Susan Collins loses in Maine, this will be partly because she did something admirable and senatorial. Standing against manufactured hysteria, she voted to confirm Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. In 4,192 words spoken on the Senate floor, she examined his extensive judicial record and the sexual assault allegations against him. Demonstrating the complete lack of corroborating evidence, she concluded that the allegations could not meet even the minimal "more likely than not" standard. Read her statement and marvel at its sobriety about the Senate's "advice and consent" duty. This is vanishingly rare among incumbent senators of both parties. [bold added]

These and his hope, obiter dictum for just enough Republicans left to sustain a presidential veto sounds about right to me.

Will's rationale is spot-on:

If Republicans lose not only their House majority, but Senate seats they currently hold in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Texas, they might begin to wonder: Could we be doing something wrong? Such a resort to thinking is necessary to begin restoring legislative checks on the executive. And it is necessary if America is ever again going to have a conservative political party. [bold added]

Or, better than merely conservative, I would add, a pro-liberty party.

-- CAV